Someone asks, "Who is constitutionally mandated with the security of the president on air and land" because, I shit you not, it finally occurred to them that when the presidential journey to California was canceled last month, "the sovereignty of Kenya was at stake." Don't get me wrong; I do not want someone to frag my Commander-in-Chief. He's the one we have and are likely to keep him till the end of the decade and beyond. I wish him long life, prosperity, sagacity and success.
We have fetishised the constitution since its promulgation that we are now in danger of losing our minds over the document. At almost 80,000 words, it is not an easy read but it is not a blue print for every single government boondoggle that we'd care to tack onto it. In our zeal to seal off all possible loopholes that previous regimes had driven through in the former constitution, we ended up with an unwieldy document whose implementation has proven to be the No. 1 cause of political angst and idiocy.
The most important object of a constitution is the organisation of a government, assigning functions and duties among the various arms. That has been the constitutional arrangement of successful democracies for nigh on four centuries. It needed tweaking in light of evolution in state/individual relations and that is why no one will quibble with the Bill of Rights taking precedence over the organisation of the government. And it is the primacy of the Bill of Rights that should be the first clue every time we go on and on about the sovereignty of Kenya; it is not presidential.
The president is not a sovereign; this is not a kingdom or a theocracy. His death or injury at the hands of an incompetent securocracy will not affect the sovereignty of this nation. It is bigger than the president. It supersedes the president. It exceeds the president. The president is a creature of the constitution, but the sovereignty of this nation is the will of the people. It is not the will of the constitution. It is immutable. Without the people there is no sovereign state. It's that simple.
The safety of the Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief is an operational matter, not a constitutional one. The safety of the president affects the functioning of the government; it does not amend or alter the constitution one iota. Before someone loses their shit and comes after me with a hashtag, the president is in office in accordance with the constitution but he is not the State, he is not the embodiment of the constitution and his safety is best addressed in the context of what the fuck his handlers were doing when he boarded his presidential jet for the United Arab Emirates.
There is a reason why Kenyans were encouraged to read and debate the harmonised draft constitution. Few could manage a nuanced debate devoid of partisan political rhetoric. We hoped that public commentators would lead the way. They did not and now we have columnists seeing constitutional crises in how the safety of the president is handled. Or conflating the presidency with the sovereignty of this nation. I will not declare that only constitutional lawyers should make bold declarations on the sovereignty of Kenya; but before a layperson makes that bold declaration, they had best ask three lawyers for their opinions and, hopefully, from the sixteen that will ensue, she will have a clue about what she's talking about.
Who
is constitutionally mandated with the security of the president on air
and on land? - See more at:
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/i-dont-believe-fairytales-even-african-ones#sthash.MC3qEWkp.2buJeuJJ.dpuf
Who
is constitutionally mandated with the security of the president on air
and on land? - See more at:
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/i-dont-believe-fairytales-even-african-ones#sthash.MC3qEWkp.2buJeuJJ.dpuf
Who
is constitutionally mandated with the security of the president on air
and on land? - See more at:
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/i-dont-believe-fairytales-even-african-ones#sthash.MC3qEWkp.2buJeuJJ.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment